Can I suggest that Alan_B and keatah perhaps continue their discussions of the more tech hardware aspects in hardware perhaps?.
let's try to keep this thread more software based.
thanks guys
Never used any, haven't really needed a replacement. Maybe I don't have that many (and deep) folder structures etc.. Some things I've replaced a long time ago are Windows' defrag & search (->Defraggler/UltraDefrag/WinContig & Everything). Oh and mediaplayer (never really used WMP) & browser (->mainly MPC HC & Firefox). Also Win firewall -> Comodo.
Search Everything has consistently been my favorite search replacement.
Search Everything has consistently been my favorite search replacement.
Everything is not prefect. It overlooks files.
Really? I've never had any issues.
@keatah, just wondering how much stock you put in S.M.A.R.T values.
i thought they were 'indicators' more than reliable values.
at least that was the impression i formed when the technology was first coming in and hence, i've sort of treated those figures with a grain of salt.
for example, i had a PC that booted fine for years but the startup screen always said S.M.A.R.T has detected failing drive (or whatever that message was)
mind you, my NAS i use for backups has said that in the past and i replaced the 'failing' drive lickity-split. (who don't much around when it comes to backups)
Edit: sorry Hazel, just saw your post after i posted this. i clicked on the star to see 'my thread' but it took me to #20 to which i thought i was replying as the last post then realised there was this newer page. that's happened before to me when clicking on that asterick, haven't nailed it down yet. suspect a slow web connection.
I have opened a new thread with my opinion of SMART values and why I do or do not trust them.
In the past, I have used Total Commander in my winPE rescue kit. I do like the plugin selections. There's a lot of options here for working with old classic-computer archives. Standards no longer used today.
Everything is not prefect. It overlooks files.
Really? I've never had any issues.
I found the same, it was very quick but far too often simply didn't find items that were present so ended up having to use Windows search anyway. So got rid.
Really? I've never had any issues.
Same here.
I found the same, it was very quick but far too often simply didn't find items that were present so ended up having to use Windows search anyway. So got rid.
Which version did you use?
You could've tried some alternative eg. Locate32..?
I like UltraSearch, especially the fact that I can search for and only present the files that hold a particular text string
A problem with Everything is that it depends on the MFT and so cannot work on FAT32 formats,
and another problem is that the MFT includes historic information so Everything reports the existence of files that have been deleted,
and I only realise the error when I right click and try to either view Properties or to "Open Containing Folder".
Both the above fail to detect files that Windows conceals within "System Volume Information", and I have learnt to live with that.
I also learnt how to blast away restrictions by the use of iCacls - but I am hesitant to recommend that for an average user
I am however troubled by the thought that Windows is concealing the contents of other folders that I am not aware of.
Yesterday I wanted a file search technique that I could safely give an average user to find a file even if it was buried in System Volume Information.
I had a bright idea and tested it and found it worked.
Drum Roll - Grand Announcement coming
. . .and a hush falls over the crowd . . .
A problem with Everything is that it depends on the MFT and so cannot work on FAT32 formats
The only drawback IMO. Though all my drives are NTFS except my USB stick(s). But I backup my USB stick to HDD so I kinda can search the files there.
and another problem is that the MFT includes historic information so Everything reports the existence of files that have been deleted
I've noticed something like this before, but hasn't really been a problem.
I just checked and updated Everything; I had v1.2.1.451a (alpha) and now -> v1.3.0.631b (beta). (Still) looks nice & fast. Maybe even better than previously.
THE ULTIMATE file search utility is DEFRAGGLER from PIRIFORM
There is NO need to Defrag - or even to Analyze.
Instead click on the TAB marched Search
Tick the box against "Filename Contains:" and enter the file-name of interest
Tick the box "Include non-fragmented files"
Then click the button "Search"
and then an Analyze will happen after which every sought file will be shown.
When I search C:\ for *.LOG I obtain all the results within 2 Seconds.
This includes an analyse of Windows 7 Ultimate contents :- 73,474 Files in 16,193 Folders occupying 15.2 GB (16,400,225,451 bytes)
The results include C:\System Volume Information\Tracking.log
When I search D:\ for *.LOG I obtain all the results within 1 Second.
This includes an analyse of 3,926 Files, 3,190 Folders occupying 634 MB (665,017,148 bytes)
The results include
D:\System Volume Information\Chkdsk\Chkdsk20110808110721.log
and
D:\System Volume Information\Chkdsk\Chkdsk20110414213419.log
If I right click then I can select "Open Containing Folder" and Windows Explorer is launched and gives me full access to both files.
The only downside I can see after one day is that zero byte sized files are not reported - I guess because they have no need for defragging.
Enjoy.
It is best to arrange your files in such a way that you only need to search a few branches deep, and in a certain area. Then the standard windows search more than suffices.
Thanks, Alan.
It is best to arrange your files in such a way that you only need to search a few branches deep, and in a certain area. Then the standard windows search more than suffices.
I am totally unsatisfied by Windows Search.
On my Laptop running XP I found that Windows Search would lock up if I was searching a region that included Acronis Image backup *.TIB files.
I have no control over the location of Windows system created files such as my examples in C:\System Volume Information\
Sometimes I might see an error report concerning a file with no certain path to that file,
and I might wish to locate that file in order to investigate.
I hear many people complain about Windows Search. And the only thing I dislike about it is it slows way down once you get into involved and deep searches.
But decades ago. I learned to always separate data into three main categories.
1- User Generated Data - pictures, music, programming projects, journals, records, logs, things like that.
2- Programs & Applications & Settings - the stuff you buy at the computer store (or download). Tools, games, office suites, utilities..
3- Operating System - This could be a 10k RAM resident routine like Apple II DOS, or a multi-GB Win7 install. Drivers go here too.
By doing my best not to intertwine and mix these together I find that a lot of aspects of computing go smoother. Everything is more consistent and easy to get to, everything is more bulletproof. Updating software, patching operating systems, organizing my projects. And especially backup operations. It is simple to grab the working parts of the system (OS & Apps) in one grab, and all my UserData in another.
Sounds like a lot of work, but when you've been working like this for years it really becomes second nature. Only problem is when I have to work on others' systems. They all look like a jumbled mess.
All this tends to combine together and makes Windows Search even bearable if slow. It's pretty straightforward which one of those major areas something is going to be located in. And that takes an enormous load off any search program - including the internal workings of NTFS and Windows.
@ ALAN_B - What are you looking for in the SYSTEM VOLUME directory?
Windows Search & Indexing sucks.
@ ALAN_B - What are you looking for in the SYSTEM VOLUME directory?
I was not looking for anything in that SYSTEM volume.
I actually KNEW the contents because TREESIZE FREE shows me in a folder tree structure everything that is taking space on my system,
hence I already knew the contents of the least accessible folder on my system.
My requirement was to discover a utility that will search my whole system for any file-name that might be of interest regardless of any access restrictions.
When I use TREESIZE I see *.log files and so I test any Search Utility with *.LOG,
and Defraggler reports the full paths and names of 42 such files,
and this includes the files that Treesize found in System Volume hence I am confident that Defraggler is NOT subject to access restrictions like normal search utilities.
TREESIZE also shows me that SYSTEM VOLUME holds both Syscache.hve.LOG1 and Syscache.hve.LOG2
Defraggler finds the first which is 256 KB, but NOT the second which is zero bytes.
You win some and you lose some - but I guess a zero byte sized file is normally not dangerous and of no value so no loss.